State v. Lee, 21170
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Writing for the Court | LITTLEJOHN; LEWIS, C. J., NESS and GREGORY, JJ., and WALTER T. COX, III |
Citation | 274 S.C. 372,264 S.E.2d 418 |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Rickey LEE, Appellant. (Two cases) |
Docket Number | No. 21170,21170 |
Decision Date | 18 March 1980 |
Page 418
v.
Rickey LEE, Appellant. (Two cases)
[274 S.C. 373] John L. Sweeny, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
LITTLEJOHN, Justice:
The defendant-appellant, Rickey Lee, was indicted and pled not guilty to charges of (1) murder and (2) failing to stop for a police vehicle. After much testimony had been [274 S.C. 374] taken, he changed his plea to guilty of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced by the trial judge to twenty years imprisonment, suspended after the service of fifteen years and placed on probation for five years. He also pled guilty to failing to stop and was sentenced to ninety days, to run concurrently. After the sentence was imposed, he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea. His request was denied. He now appeals, raising basically two issues for determination by this court: (1) Did the lower court (Judge Julius H. Baggett) err in holding that he was competent to stand trial? and (2) Did the trial judge (Paul M. Moore) err in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea?
Prior to the call of the case for trial, the defendant's lawyer submitted to the court that he was not competent to stand trial. Having raised the issue, the burden
Page 419
of proving that he was not competent to stand trial was upon him, and the burden of proof in such cases is by the preponderance of the evidence. There was testimony which, if believed, would have warranted a finding that this defendant was not competent to stand trial. On the other hand, the South Carolina State Hospital Superintendent submitted to the court a report dated June 14, 1978, indicating that the defendant had been admitted to the hospital on June 1, 1978, for the purpose of determining his capacity to stand trial, pursuant to § 44-23-410, et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). This report stated that after study and observation, the hospital staff found:"(a) That the above-named defendant (Rickey Lee) is not mentally ill.
"(b) That the above-named defendant is capable of understanding the nature of the charges, and is capable of assisting counsel in his own defense."
These reports were admissible under Code § 44-23-410(2).
Defendant argues that it was improper during the competency hearing to allow the solicitor to ask the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Franklin, No. 24190
..."[t]he report of the examination is admissible as evidence in subsequent hearings pursuant to Section 44-23-430." See also State v. Lee, 274 S.C. 372, 264 S.E.2d 418 (1980) (mental examination reports submitted pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 44-23-410(2)). Thus, the report is a statutory excep......
-
State v. Proctor, No. 3414.
...bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. Nance, 320 S.C. at 504, 466 S.E.2d at 351; State v. Lee, 274 S.C. 372, 264 S.E.2d 418 Proctor was found incompetent to stand trial in 1993. The State moved to have Proctor re-evaluated in 1996. A competency hea......
-
State v. Proctor, No. 3415.
...bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. Nance, 320 S.C. at 504, 466 S.E.2d at 351; State v. Lee, 274 S.C. 372, 264 S.E.2d 418 Proctor suffered severe brain damage and paralysis to both legs and one arm as a result of his car accident. He was found in......
-
State v. Nance, No. 24363
...788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)). The defendant bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lee, 274 S.C. 372, 264 S.E.2d 418 (1980). The trial court's determination of competency will [320 S.C. 505] be upheld if it has evidentiary support and is not ......